Close Gitmo?

[barfo]

Where was McCain's trial in Vietnam?

Where was the trial when Morg the caveman bashed Drog the caveman in the head with a rock and took his woman?

Well, if the cavemen didn't have trials, then we don't have to either.

Prisoners of war are prisoners until cessation of hostilies. If they want to go home, they should hope their comrades stop blowing things up, kidnapping, or plotting against governments (theirs or ours).

And how will we know when hostilities have ceased, in this case? Who is going to formally surrender to us?

Are rednecks the only ones allowed to believe in justice, or that law are followed?

Yes.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Someone please explain to me why we care about what other countries think about our "morals"?

Them thinking that we are immoral makes it easier for them to attack us (easier to recruit, easier to raise funds). That's why we (should) care.

The changes to extradition that have occurred...do you think that it's b/c other leaders think that Americans have suddenly become corrupt over the last 7 years?

I don't know about extradition - maybe that's part of this thread but I'm too lazy to look - but as far as what others think, I don't think they'd say we've gone from 0% corrupt to 100% corrupt (and now back to 0% corrupt). It's more a matter of emphasis.

Since you write about military issues a lot, I think of you as a soldier. If you wrote about how adorable your kids are instead, I might think of you as a dad. You might be both (or neither), but if you show me one face that's the face I'm likely to focus on, even if I'm aware there is another aspect. We've been showing our corrupt side, so that's what people are going to think of us. Even if it isn't the whole truth. Lots of people prefer their world to be black and white, and to choose sides. Blazers rule, fakers drool.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

That idea is laughable in itself.... Wow.... "war on terror" ?? really? LoL

Yep. That's where we disagree. I always prefer clarity over agreement.

 

[maxiep]

Let em all go in Kenwood. Obama doesn't live there anymore. They're obviously no threat to anyone.

Oddly, nobody's actually responding to the fact in the first post (the news story).

Let me tell you something. I would LOVE for Chicago cops to be responsible for these detainees. The U of C police force is one of the biggest in Illinois. It's all off-duty Chicago cops who are pissed they have to pull extra shifts for the U of C to make ends meet. They don't take shit from anyone.

 

[maxiep]

They're obviously no threat to anyone.

Oddly, nobody's actually responding to the fact in the first post (the news story).

Didn't you hear? Everyone at Gitmo is innocent! It was Gitmo that turned that detainee to Al-Qaeda.

 

[maxiep]

A couple of things regarding this thread. First, I find it naive that we could do anything that would make Islamic extremists suddenly love us other that just giving up and following the way of Allah. Desperate people who are the losers in the race for modernity are going to listen to anyone who can assign blame for their plight.

Second, Gitmo is window dressing. I'm fine with closing it because I'm convinced we have REAL hell holes where we send the worst of the worst. I hope they enjoy their new digs. And if they happen to be sent to maximum security prisons here, I hope they enjoy tossing salad--for some reason prisoners are really patriotic.

 

[el_Diablo]

Gitmo didn't prevent that guy from doing bad things. Apparently, Gitmo wasn't making the right decisions about who to keep and who to release.

barfo

it's pretty interesting that 89% of the former detainees have not "returned" to fight. one could say they were there for no reason at all..

 

[Denny Crane]

it's pretty interesting that 89% of the former detainees have not "returned" to fight. one could say they were there for no reason at all..

Or that they were kept there long enough that they became irrelevant (the rest of the guys they fought with are dead).

Or that they all are back to fighting or helping, just we don't know for sure.

 

[el_Diablo]

Or that they were kept there long enough that they became irrelevant (the rest of the guys they fought with are dead).

Or that they all are back to fighting or helping, just we don't know for sure.

or that those 61 were kept there long enough to entice them to join the terrorist organizations..

 

[Denny Crane]

or that those 61 were kept there long enough to entice them to join the terrorist organizations..

Entice them how?

They want to get caught and come back.

Or would you expect 100% of them to go join the terrorist organizations, even the "innocent" ones.

 

[el_Diablo]

Entice them how?

by ruining their life to a point where they have nothing left except their hatred for "the freedoms america provided them in guantanamo".

Or would you expect 100% of them to go join the terrorist organizations, even the "innocent" ones.

of course not. people react to oppression in different ways.

 

[PapaG]

So what's the plan for these prisoners? It's against the Geneva Conventions to place enemy combatants into a general population. Is the plan to build some new prision? If so, there is a functional one in Gitmo right now.

 

[maxiep]

So what's the plan for these prisoners? It's against the Geneva Conventions to place enemy combatants into a general population. Is the plan to build some new prision? If so, there is a functional one in Gitmo right now.

Hopefully, they'll be dropped off in every district represented by some loudmouth who claimed that these people were harmless. Heck, Nancy Pelosi rarely uses her house in San Francisco and President Obama doesn't need his digs on Greenwood Ave. And if Barney Frank can have a brothel run from his house, there's no reason he can't host some friendly bearded folks who believe in Allah.

 

[SodaPopinski]

I love how some of the token conservatives on this board are citing examples of released-detainees-turned-terrorists under the Bush administration as some sort of indictment of the Obama administration.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to read the actual executive order rather than a random take from some jerk-off with a blog.

I think some of you actually believe that we're a few days away from them just opening the gates to Gitmo and letting all of the detainees walk.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

I love how some of the token conservatives on this board are citing examples of released-detainees-turned-terrorists under the Bush administration as some sort of indictment of the Obama administration.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to read the actual executive order rather than a random take from some jerk-off with a blog.

I think some of you actually believe that we're a few days away from them just opening the gates to Gitmo and letting all of the detainees walk.

-Pop

Ah, to be a token.

Whether we open the gates today or next year, they're still terrorists. It's not like an extra year of curing under the Cuban sun is going to turn them into fork-tender Boy scouts.

 

[SodaPopinski]

Ah, to be a token.

Whether we open the gates today or next year, they're still terrorists. It's not like an extra year of curing under the Cuban sun is going to turn them into fork-tender Boy scouts.

Again ... read the executive order. Each detainee is going to be evaluated by a committee consisting of - among others - the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. The committee will recommend what should happen with the detainees. You can expect many of them will remain in US custody.

The "one year" part of the order gives them time to conduct the evaluations as they see fit.

At no point are they simply going to just "let the detainees walk."

But I understand that it serves your Obama-bashing to ignore the facts and sensationalize the story.

-Pop

 

[blue32]

Again ... read the executive order. Each detainee is going to be evaluated by a committee consisting of - among others - the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. The committee will recommend what should happen with the detainees. You can expect many of them will remain in US custody.

The "one year" part of the order gives them time to conduct the evaluations as they see fit.

At no point are they simply going to just "let the detainees walk."

But I understand that it serves your Obama-bashing to ignore the facts and sensationalize the story.

-Pop

-Pop, you forget MaxieP is still hiding in their nuclear fallout shelter, scared that the terror in the desert is going to strike at any moment. Living in fear is ridiculous....

 

[maxiep]

Again ... read the executive order. Each detainee is going to be evaluated by a committee consisting of - among others - the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. The committee will recommend what should happen with the detainees. You can expect many of them will remain in US custody.

The "one year" part of the order gives them time to conduct the evaluations as they see fit.

At no point are they simply going to just "let the detainees walk."

But I understand that it serves your Obama-bashing to ignore the facts and sensationalize the story.

-Pop

I don't need to bash Obama. He ran against the War on Terror, pretending it didn't exist. It's a safe bet that many won't be staying with us and will be responsible for the death of American soldiers in the future.

 

[maxiep]

-Pop, you forget MaxieP is still hiding in their nuclear fallout shelter, scared that the terror in the desert is going to strike at any moment. Living in fear is ridiculous....

And pretending that we're not in a war right now is naive.

 

[blue32]

And pretending that we're not in a war right now is naive.

Lol, hey, whatever floats your boat.... just believe what they tell ya, keep hidin' under the desk, and give give give all your money to the "war on terror" effort. Hey, if you give just a little bit more, w/o question, we just MAY find those WMD, in a spider-hole.

 

[SodaPopinski]

I don't need to bash Obama.

You're right. You don't need to, but you will. Just like the rest of the conservative lemmings.

He ran against the War on Terror, pretending it didn't exist.

Interesting interpretation. And by "interesting" I mean "ignorant." Maybe you should read his homeland security agenda. What part of that agenda suggests to you that he's ignoring the threat of terrorism?

It's a safe bet that many won't be staying with us and will be responsible for the death of American soldiers in the future.

Well, if that happens, then you can lay the blame at the feet of plenty of people, including current Secretary of Defense and G.W. Bush appointee Robert Gates, considering he's the main individual responsible for evaluating the threat each detainee poses. You'd know that if you actually read the executive order I posted a link to yesterday.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

Lol, hey, whatever floats your boat.... just believe what they tell ya, keep hidin' under the desk, and give give give all your money to the "war on terror" effort. Hey, if you give just a little bit more, w/o question, we just MAY find those WMD, in a spider-hole.

It's sad how your side takes security for granted. I guess you think Al Qaeda just stopped trying to attack us after September 11th.

 

[maxiep]

You're right. You don't need to, but you will. Just like the rest of the conservative lemmings.

First, I'm not a conservative. Second, given the slant of this board, calling someone right of center a "lemming" is hilarious. Third, I hope he succeeds in keeping us safe as his predecesor did for seven years.

Interesting interpretation. And by "interesting" I mean "ignorant." Maybe you should read his homeland security agenda. What part of that agenda suggests to you that he's ignoring the threat of terrorism?

I look to what he says rather than some shiny policy document filled with platitudes that he's likely never read. I remember him saying how US soldiers bombed villages and killed civilians in Afghanistan. I listen to him say that "perhaps some of the people at Guantanimo might actually be dangerous" as if they just happened to be on the field of battle having a picnic at the time they were captured. I listen to him say that he would meet without preconditions to chat with those who have been sending men and materiel to kill our soldiers.

I find his Blame America First worldview not only naive, but dangerous.

Well, if that happens, then you can lay the blame at the feet of plenty of people, including current Secretary of Defense and G.W. Bush appointee Robert Gates, considering he's the main individual responsible for evaluating the threat each detainee poses. You'd know that if you actually read the executive order I posted a link to yesterday.

-Pop

And I'm sure that if Robert Gates said they all need to be detained in perpetuity and Guantanimo was the best place to hold them, President Obama would agree wholeheartely.

 

[SodaPopinski]

What's funny to me is that I post actual links to information that is fact-based. You post your biased interpretation of things, with no factual background to back it up.

But I suppose if you don't actually have anything solid to point to other than a "hunch" you have, it becomes pretty transparent.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

What's funny to me is that I post actual links to information that is fact-based. You post your biased interpretation of things, with no factual background to back it up.

But I suppose if you don't actually have anything solid to point to other than a "hunch" you have, it becomes pretty transparent.

-Pop

I posted actual things Barack Obama said. I don't know how that counts as a "hunch". I bet if you looked at President Bush's policy prescriptions posted on the Whitehouse.gov website, they would bear little resemblance to what he actually did.

 

[SodaPopinski]

I bet if you looked at President Bush's policy prescriptions posted on the Whitehouse.gov website, they would bear little resemblance to what he actually did.

Conveniently enough for you, we'll just have to "guess" since you can no longer access that information.

But my sense is the agenda he had on there pretty closely resembled what he tried to do.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

Conveniently enough for you, we'll just have to "guess" since you can no longer access that information.

But my sense is the agenda he had on there pretty closely resembled what he tried to do.

-Pop

Please. President Bush talked about limited government and grew it faster than you can say "Jimmy Carter".

 

[SodaPopinski]

Please. President Bush talked about limited government and grew it faster than you can say "Jimmy Carter".

I thought we were talking about homeland security / "war on terror" here ...

Like I said, my guess is that you'd probably find his agenda of surveilance, detainment, large-scale military occupation, etc. fairly close to what he actually did.

-Pop

 

[maxiep]

I thought we were talking about homeland security / "war on terror" here ...

Like I said, my guess is that you'd probably find his agenda of surveilance, detainment, large-scale military occupation, etc. fairly close to what he actually did.

-Pop

I was talking in general about how politicians try to put the best face on their policies through vanilla policy targets and pronouncements vs. what they really think and do.